Daily Republican., 1887-02-19
THIRD EDITION.
A BATTLE OF THE 0IANrs.

A BATTLE OF TnE GIANTS.
Forensic Eioqueuce-An Entire Day
spent In Arguing the Giles W.. The
Diamond state Iron Company.
Court recon vened ut O'Clock yester-
day afternoon after recoss Of about 90
minutes. Mr.. Bates resumed his arRu-
ment, and proceeded TO review the evt
dence Of the witnesses for the plaintiff.
in references 10 the storm. He said that
he did not care whether that wind was
called . tornado, . cy clone or . gust,
the fact was apparent that IL Was strong
enough to blow down the wall. He
ctntendsa that there had been nothing
produced to show negligence on the
part OF the dc fendante, aud be did mot
think the jury would be able 70 find
the slightest proof In all the evidence
to show there was.
Everything had tended to show that
the defendants had exercised every care
possible in the construction Of the
buildins, still II the jury had the slight
est doubt on this matter IL would be
their duty to inquire II there was not
also certain amount OF negligence on
the part OF the plaintiff. 1t docs not
tiff had worked At carpenter work one
day or ten years, the law and the facts
are that, when he went to work ON the
building he assumed the ordinary risks
and also the extraordinary risks, when
he had the Same means Of learning the
condition Of the walls, and any defects,
II such existed, a. the defer dants had
This case does not only concern the
plaintiff, Giles, but may have Its infiu
ence on 0 hundred others Suppose one
of the Jury should wish to build barn
or shed on his farm or grounds, does
he wish to be obliged to send to Phila-
delphia or somewhere else and obtail
an architect to tell him how 1t must be
done? Such . verdict, or such deci
sion would pls ce every one who wishes
to build anything At all on . boundless
sea. He concluded his argument to the
Jury by asking them to carefully weigh
the evidence, and then render their yer.
dict as each man thought WAS just and
proper. After submitting several points
CT law to the Court he asked that the
Jury should be charged that violation
OF an ordinance does not establish neg
ligence, Per se. He cited several
authorities on this point, and closed n
3 40 O'Clock.
Mr.. Lore opened the closing argument
for the defense By saying that the de
PENDANTS were not here because they
had refused 60 minister to the wants o.
the plain tiff after this unfortunate &C
cident. They had followed him to hi
home, and not only ministered to hi
wants but offered TO meet all his de
mapds until he was made whole Ant
q. lie t. q ont In the v ogld o sain. They
had also said to his physicians do
everything in your power for this un
fortunate young man, and We will pay
your bills Tits had not been done be
cause they recognized any legal liabil
ity in the matter, but from the dictate
of humanity. They had continued Il
minister to bis wants until he refuset
to accept anything at their hands. ant
said he was acting under the advice o
counsel. He then dragged these plain
tiffs into court, and claims In his mar
$4,000 damages.
He referred to the fact OF Gle
teaching dancing at Webster's dancing
school, and said that he did not thint
that the best kind of occupation or ex
ercise for n man who has broken limt
which he is anxious to have heal up a
soon as possible. THIS, he said, wa
not as great ~ claimed, and even tn
physicians, who examined him just be
fore this trial CONNIE need, testified tina
they could find nothing except th
broken limb, which was knitting tC
aether, and an undemonstratable pair
In res ard to the leg being little shorte
than the other, be said 1t was an undit
putable fact that in very few men bot
legs were of precisely the same length
and that therefore this was no cause fo
damages. He then reviewed the test
mony in relation to the wall and sal
that it all tended to show that nothin
had been left undoue to make II sut
ttantial in every part, aud that the
lad even gone to to an extra expense Q
hundreds OF dollars to make i, perfect
This struc use was to cover and pre-
tect valuable macbilery, and it is bu
reasonable to suppose that they tried
get the very best building obtainabl
flr the purpose, Mr.. Davis ia pract
cal and experienced man, ard when tn
jury exsminsd his plan there was I
doubt hut they would say 1t was perfe
in every respect, and admirably adap
ed for the purpose for which it W,
i1tended. They wanted to put up
building which would stand as long
they were In business, and 1t Is not
bs suppot ed that rs sensible, commt
sense business men, they would for Il
sake Of saving few hundreds Of DE-
lars put up wall which they kne
would fall down, and cause them
spend thousands. This wall was bui
with care and precision, and tae carpe
tiers knowing this moved about the 70
without fear or thought OF danger un
TIM uuh hi p mind and = n q
ell to the earth by the hand Of God, ca
Ring these poor men with it,and bur
ing them in the debris.
And yet although these men who bu
the wall, and those who were work.
on the roof had no thought OF dang
this company is dragged into Court, a
a jury asked to mulct them for damag
The plaintiff had brought fourteen {
pert witnesses to show that the wall "
defective and not strong enough, but
would put against their testimony t
TACT that this wall had stood for a wht
month, with all the strain of putting I
srusses IN place, and the further TACT tt
the day before 1t fell 1t was perfec
straight and plumb. 1t wac thereto
impossible Tor the defendant to forel
what no one else even thought or drea
ed of, He said that he did not prop,
to argue that nine inch wall was
strong as one thirteen inches would
or thirteen inch wall as strong as
eighteen inch, but he did argue that |
der the circumstances the thickn
would not h ave made any difference, 8
that the wall would have fell with t
storm.
Everything possible was done to ma
the building substantial, and he challe
ed the counsel for the plaintiff to sh
even the sembance of negligence.
building was destroy ed by an agency t
twas not possible for man to avert;